3 ms·

That would be a specious and incredibly naive argument. First A (unpatented invention), then B (success), ergo A causes B -- is that the proposal here? Wouldn't

That would be a specious and incredibly naive argument. First A (unpatented invention), then B (success), ergo A causes B -- is that the proposal here? Wouldn't I just have to show the existence of only one invention which became popular, despite being patented, to disprove this? (If I didn't reject it on the grounds that it is fallacious reasoning) Yes, you could argue that he would not have been eulogized, but you would need to have a better argument and it would be speculative at best. Edit: sorry it's late, not trying to be a dick.

001sky 14y ago
That would be a specious and incredibly naive argument The invention is before the patent. You're missing that. It is important. > Invention | patent
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
kderbe 14y ago
No, you're right, it's a specious argument. While digging for data to back it up, I found this interesting quote from Camenzind: There are no patents on the 555. Signetics did not want to apply for a patent. You see, the situation with patents in Silicon Valley in 1970 was entirely different than it is now. Everybody was stealing from everybody else. I designed the 555 Signetics produced it, and six months, or before a year later, National had it, Fairchild had it, and nobody paid any attention to patents. The people at Signetics told me they didn’t want to apply for a patent, because what would happen if they tried to enforce that patent, is the people from Fairchild would come back with a Manhattan-sized telephone book and say “These are our patents, now let’s see what you’re violating”. It was a house of cards – if you blew on it, the whole thing collapsed.[1] That's strong evidence that the lack of patent for the 555 was unrelated to its particular success, so I admit I was wrong about that. But if Camenzind is correct in his history, then it sounds like Silicon Valley had a solution 40 years ago to the patent mess: pretend they don't exist! [1] http://www.semiconductormuseum.com/Transistors/LectureHall/Camenzind/Camenzind_Page9.htm http://www.semiconductormuseum.com/Transistors/LectureHall/C...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- indiecore 14y ago
  >sounds like Silicon Valley had a solution 40 years ago to the patent mess: pretend they don't exist! No they had a solution and it was MAD. >The people at Signetics told me they didn’t want to apply for a patent, because what would happen if they tried to enforce that patent, is the people from Fairchild would come back with a Manhattan-sized telephone book and say “These are our patents, now let’s see what you’re violating”. And it worked really well for a time. Unfortunately someone thought they could win and decided to "go nuclear" and now we're all stuck in the middle of a patent war.
- pcamenzind 14y ago
  There was an interesting bit of industrial espionage intrigue around the 555, a story he told friends and family many times. As he mentions in his book "Designing Analog Chips" he was at one point stuck on a design that required 9 pins, and that forced it into a 14 pin package. He initially submitted this design to Signetics and it was this design that someone in the company leaked to a competitor. But the larger package bugged him and he kept at it until he was able to get it down to 8 pins which allowed an 8-pin package, much preferable over a 14 pin one. The competitors, unaware of the improved design, came out with the larger 14-pin package and this gave Signetics a significant edge when they started selling the 555.
mseebach2 14y ago
The quote at the top of this thread specifically argues causation from non-patent to success. Not patented -> rivals release own versions -> price pushed down -> chip becomes ubiquitous. It is, of course, entirely possible that, if patented, it would have been licensed at a low enough cost to still have become ubiquitous.
- 001sky 14y ago
  Since when is non-existence a cause? I think you need to re-phrase this a bit. The simultaneity of non-existence is precisely not a cause. The fact that they are independent (statistically) is perhaps more interesting. Certainly from a public policy perspective.
  - mseebach2 14y ago
    The decision not to patent can be a cause. But other accounts in this thread suggests that patenting or not would have had little influence in the environment in the Silicon Valley.

001sky 14y ago

That would be a specious and incredibly naive argument The invention is before the patent. You're missing that. It is important. > Invention | patent

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

kderbe 14y ago

No, you're right, it's a specious argument. While digging for data to back it up, I found this interesting quote from Camenzind: There are no patents on the 555. Signetics did not want to apply for a patent. You see, the situation with patents in Silicon Valley in 1970 was entirely different than it is now. Everybody was stealing from everybody else. I designed the 555 Signetics produced it, and six months, or before a year later, National had it, Fairchild had it, and nobody paid any attention to patents. The people at Signetics told me they didn’t want to apply for a patent, because what would happen if they tried to enforce that patent, is the people from Fairchild would come back with a Manhattan-sized telephone book and say “These are our patents, now let’s see what you’re violating”. It was a house of cards – if you blew on it, the whole thing collapsed.[1] That's strong evidence that the lack of patent for the 555 was unrelated to its particular success, so I admit I was wrong about that. But if Camenzind is correct in his history, then it sounds like Silicon Valley had a solution 40 years ago to the patent mess: pretend they don't exist! [1] http://www.semiconductormuseum.com/Transistors/LectureHall/Camenzind/Camenzind_Page9.htm http://www.semiconductormuseum.com/Transistors/LectureHall/C...

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
indiecore 14y ago
>sounds like Silicon Valley had a solution 40 years ago to the patent mess: pretend they don't exist! No they had a solution and it was MAD. >The people at Signetics told me they didn’t want to apply for a patent, because what would happen if they tried to enforce that patent, is the people from Fairchild would come back with a Manhattan-sized telephone book and say “These are our patents, now let’s see what you’re violating”. And it worked really well for a time. Unfortunately someone thought they could win and decided to "go nuclear" and now we're all stuck in the middle of a patent war.
pcamenzind 14y ago
There was an interesting bit of industrial espionage intrigue around the 555, a story he told friends and family many times. As he mentions in his book "Designing Analog Chips" he was at one point stuck on a design that required 9 pins, and that forced it into a 14 pin package. He initially submitted this design to Signetics and it was this design that someone in the company leaked to a competitor. But the larger package bugged him and he kept at it until he was able to get it down to 8 pins which allowed an 8-pin package, much preferable over a 14 pin one. The competitors, unaware of the improved design, came out with the larger 14-pin package and this gave Signetics a significant edge when they started selling the 555.

mseebach2 14y ago

The quote at the top of this thread specifically argues causation from non-patent to success. Not patented -> rivals release own versions -> price pushed down -> chip becomes ubiquitous. It is, of course, entirely possible that, if patented, it would have been licensed at a low enough cost to still have become ubiquitous.

001sky 14y ago
Since when is non-existence a cause? I think you need to re-phrase this a bit. The simultaneity of non-existence is precisely not a cause. The fact that they are independent (statistically) is perhaps more interesting. Certainly from a public policy perspective.
- mseebach2 14y ago
  The decision not to patent can be a cause. But other accounts in this thread suggests that patenting or not would have had little influence in the environment in the Silicon Valley.